Opinion
Case No. 8:11-CV-171-T-30MAP
11-29-2011
ANDREW GILLINS, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner's "Motion by Petitioner for Partial Summary Judgment due to Responding Parties [sic] Failure to Comply with Discovery Rules and or Orders and Summary Judgment on the Merits of the Habeas Petition as Unopposed due to Substantial Unduly/Unwarranted or Otherwise Unreasonable and Unfair Delay by Respondent in Answering the Writ of Habeas Corpus" ("motion for summary judgment") (Dkt. 34). Petitioner requests the Court enter summary judgment in his favor because Respondent: 1) has not answered Petitioner's request for discovery, and 2) did not timely file a response to the habeas petition.
The Court denied Petitioner's motion for leave to conduct discovery (see Dkt. 53). Therefore, Respondent was not required to answer Petitioner's discovery requests. Further, Respondent did file a timely response to the habeas petition (see Dkt. 43). Moreover, neither default nor summary judgment is appropriate due to the failure to timely respond to a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See, e.g., Aziz v. Leferve, 830 F.2d 184, 187 (11th Cir. 1987) (finding that a default judgment is not contemplated in habeas corpus cases); Goodman v. Keohane, 663 F.2d 1044, 1048 n.4 (11th Cir. 1981) (rejecting petitioner's argument that the government's tardiness in responding to his petition entitled him to habeas relief).
ACCORDINGLY, the Court ORDERS that Petitioner's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 34) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on November 29, 2011.
JAMES S. MOODY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SA:sfc
Copy to: Pro se Petitioner
Counsel of Record